Singles
-------
Sean Kingston still #1, alas.

New Entries/Climbers
--------------------
Top 10 : 50 Cent #5
Top 20 : Booty Luv #11, Pavarotti #12, Elvis #14, White Stripes #18
Top 30 : Foo Fighters #21, Phil Collins #23, Taio Cruz #26, Chemical 
Brothers #27
Top 40 : Lewis/Weller #31,PB&J #33, Dave Spoon #36, Hi-Tack #38, Akon 
#40


New outside the top 40 : Status Quo #48, Charlean Dance #51, Out Of 
Office #52, Wiil.I.Am #53, Dead 60's #54, Puressence #56, 30 Seconds To 
Mars #57, HIM #59, Dykeenies #61, Ash #62, Kanye West (Good Life) #69, T 
Rex #71, Kate Nash #75

Albums
------
Unfortunately, both rappers finished ahead of my choice, KT Tunstall, 
with Kanye West prevailing.

NE's (top 20) : 50 Cent #2, KT Tunstall #3, Natalie Imbruglia #5, 
Ultrabeat #8, Kano #14, T Rex #15, Pavorotti #17 (187).


New outside the top 20 : Go Team #21, Siouxsie #39, Stephen Fretwell 
#44,  Inme #71

Next Week
---------
Singles
-------
Sean Kingston again, probably. :(

Top 10 : 50 Cent (top 3), Babyshambles
Top 20 : Elvis, Foo Fighters, PB&J
Top 30 : Fall Out Boy
Top 40 :

Any other possibilities?

Albums
------
Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an 
ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10 
combined!

Top 20 NE : Booty Luv, Rev & The Makers, Scouting For Girls
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Paul Hyett wrote:

> Albums
> ------
> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an 
> ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10 
> combined!
> 

It would be the biggest shock of all if it doesn't register a healthy 
sales figure - the record company have shipped 400,000 copies to stores 
so far, with more on standby. Anything less than 200,000 will a surprise 
but it's getting people into shops in any great numbers to buy music, 
any music, that is the problem these days - even Blunt himself has said 
that his worry is that in the digital age a significant amount of people 
will just cherry pick tracks from his album and download those rather 
than buying the album in its entirety.

I think we may see some tracks enter the singles chart too, though I'm 
not certain if any will go top 75.

-- 
Robbie

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:OvKPQJBWaX7GFwJP@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Singles
> -------
> Sean Kingston still #1, alas.
>
> New Entries/Climbers
> --------------------
> Top 10 : 50 Cent #5

Considering how much they trailed "hearing from 50 Cent later", you might be 
forgiven for expecting more than a repeat of an interview that was barely of 
broadcast quality in the first place.

> Top 20 : Booty Luv #11,

 In a slight swerve of direction from their previous hits, both covers of 
club hits that hadn't successfully crossed over to the singles chart, 'Don't 
Mess With My Man' was an actual Top 20 hit in its original form, the only 
major UK success for RnB supergroup Lucy Pearl; it's not to be confused with 
the minor hit by Nivea.
Possibly because of its previous success, this becomes the least successful 
Booty Luv single to date - the unconvincing vocals probably didn't help 
either.

> Pavarotti #12,

In search of something to add to last week's commentary, I might as well 
mention that Pavarotti is another addition to the list of people who had 
their first UK hit single after their fiftieth birthday, although of course 
he was a well-known name in his own field before he became a pop star.

> Elvis #14,

A difficult commentary to pre-draft, this not being one of his more familiar 
songs, although it was certainly a big hit in its day - Number 2 for a month 
on the NME chart we use now, and Number One in the Melody Maker.
The flipside 'Got A Lot Of Livin' To Do' also reached the chart at the time, 
helping him to a record-setting 12 charting "singles" in 1957.

> White Stripes #18

The snappily-titled 'You Don't Know What Love Is, You Just Do What You're 
Told' is the second single and indeed the second track from the Icky Thump 
LP. The track itself is a bit Stripes-by-numbers, which no doubt made it an 
easy choice of single for the record company, but seems to have failed to 
capture the public's imagination, hence this becomes their first 
studio-recorded single to miss the Top 10 since 2003.
Of course, eking out the three new B-sides (actually two acoustic versions 
and a remix) over three physical formats wasn't helpful.

> Top 30 : Phil Collins #23,

I suppose if people are going to download a Phil Collins track, it might as 
well be this one. It's certainly a more interesting record than anything he 
did subsequently, and the moment people have heard in the advert is probably 
the highlight of his entire solo career.

>Taio Cruz #26,

Supposedly the great hope of British RnB, but unfortunately for him that 
market doesn't seem too keen on trying anyone who hasn't had a hit in 
America.

>Chemical Brothers #27

Featuring an uncredited Fatlip (of The Pharcyde), 'The Salmon Dance' is a 
brave step into novelty record territory for Tom & Ed, and thus their most 
enjoyable single in some time. A difficult sort of thing to sell, though.

> Top 40 : Lewis/Weller #31,

Chart debut for Northern Soul producer Andy Lewis, thanks to his guest 
vocalist and co-writer. The track also features Ocean Colour Scene guitarist 
Steve Cradock on drums.
This is, of course, Paul Weller's second Top 40 hit as a guest star in a 
matter of weeks, although he's never had a credited one before.

> Dave Spoon #36,

A record that was doing quite well on downloads, but by dance standards 
hasn't gained a lot from physicals. Maybe people are just to embarassed to 
be seen with a record by somebody called "Dave Spoon". This also marks the 
chart return of Lisa Maffia.

>Hi-Tack #38,

The most accurately named band in dance music return, but people are 
obviously starting to tire of the formula.

>Akon #40

Physical release TBC. It's already outcharted 'Mama Africa' though, possibly 
because people haven't already got it.

> New outside the top 40 : Status Quo #48,

A rare appearance of a DualDisc in the singles chart, but the novelty of the 
format doesn't seem to have impressed their audience much, maybe because 
there's no extra audio on the disc.
This isn't exactly classic Quo anyway.

> Charlean Dance #51,

Not Charles Dance in drag, thankfully, but a very dated dance record.

> Out Of Office #52,

Another accurately-named dance outfit, who don't appear to have had their 
mind on the job at all when they made this record.

>Wiil.I.Am #53,

Out on CD & 12" on the 24th. I didn't even know the download had been 
released yet.

> Dead 60's #54,

Last week I speculated that somebody might remember them. Apparently not 
then.

>Puressence #56,

Their first single in five years, during which time they've lost a 
major-label contract and a guitarist. It's quite a testament to the loyalty 
of their audience that they've been able to muster even these many sales, 
considering they were never hugely famous to start with.

>30 Seconds To Mars #57,

Out again on CD & 7" on the 24th.

> HIM #59,

I saw some kids trying to buy this in HMV on Monday, but in the end their 
mum had to find it for them. Maybe the orange-on-orange cover design was a 
mistake.
Perhaps it's a sign of how sales have increased at the bottom end of the 
chart that this sort of low-visibility metal isn't getting into the Top 40 
any more.

>Dykeenies #61,

Scottish rockers who've still to find an audience south of the border, 
possibly because they're not very interesting and their name is almost 
impossible to spell or pronounce.

>Ash #62,

Supposedly losing out on a Top 40 position because of a "packaging error". 
Ahem.

> Kanye West (Good Life) #69,

Not the most obvious single choice from the few tracks I've heard off this 
album, but maybe that's intentional.

> T  Rex #71,

One in a series of 7" reissues designed to advertise the anniversary of Marc 
Bolan's demise. This one is 'Get It On'.

>Kate Nash #75

Out on CD & 7"s on the 1st of October.

> Albums
> ------
> Unfortunately, both rappers finished ahead of my choice, KT Tunstall, with 
> Kanye West prevailing.

Supposedly the third instalment in his trilogy of albums with 
education-themed titles.
It's unaguably the most anticipated hip-hop disc of 2007 and guaranteed 
massive sales even before he'd finished recording it. His big hissy fit at 
the MTV awards might have helped too. Just think how well it might have done 
if he was as good as people say he was.

> NE's (top 20) : 50 Cent #2,

Were there an award for Most Cliched Album Of The Year, he wouldn't have to 
worry about not winning. He's even used his first name as the album title!
The thing that surprised me most about the success of this one was that I 
didn't think the single had been enough of an airplay hit to push the 
album - but I suppose it's been on the telly a lot.

> KT Tunstall #3,

 Apparently she had trouble writing enough new material for this album, and 
had to drag some old material out of the cupboard. Which explains a lot, 
probably.

> Natalie Imbruglia #5,

 A brave decision on her record company's part to put this out when there 
were three big blockbuster releases. A brave decision to release a singles 
compilation at all when there have only been nine of them, with the 
obligatory new single being the tenth. Presumably they could have picked 
other highlights from the last two and called it the best of, but presumably 
they thought it would be more lucrative to add more new songs so people 
would have to buy it again.
It seems to have paid off.

> Ultrabeat #8,

The surprise of this week's album chart. It's being called their debut, 
although I'm sure I remember them releasing one last year that flopped 
massively.
Either way, it comes four years after their biggest hit (which was a cover 
version anyway) and that's a long time in dance music. The latest single 
failed miserably too.

> Kano #14,

Second album from the British MC who seems to have learnt from Taio Cruz 
(although I know that's not really possible) by changing his accent in the 
couple of years since his first album and raking in the guest stars: Craig 
David of course, but also Kate Nash and Damon Albarn, as well as his old 
school choir.
A limited deluxe edition adds a DVD with interviews and some Craig David 
footage.

> T Rex #15,

It was thirty years ago today that Marc Bolan died, and in a couple of 
weeks' time it would have been his birthday - so Universal are marking 
(marcing?) the anniversary in the only way they know how; another Greatest 
Hits album.
This is probably the most comprehensive of them, with 40 tracks encompassing 
every T-Rex/Tyrannosaurus Rex/T Rex Disco Party single to chart (they draw 
the line at 'Get It On' by Bus Stop Featuring T Rex though) but as someone 
with no nostalgic feelings towards the group, I can't help thinking that's a 
little bit too much.

>Pavorotti #17 (187).

One of many retrospectives rushed (back) onto the shelves for obvious 
reasons.

> New outside the top 20 : Go Team #21,

Selling surprisingly well considering the singles haven't shifted, radio 
isn't very interested and they're back on an indie label - we'll have to 
attribute this to their reputation as a live act, then.
A couple of guest stars on here, too, including Chuck D.

>Siouxsie #39,

Belated solo debut for Susan Dallion, some 29 years after the first Siouxsie 
& The Banshees album.

> Stephen Fretwell #44,

Second album from the singer-songwriter and of course guitarist who was 
seemingly going to have a hit single once. He didn't. This album was 
recorded in New York.

> Inme #71

Or InMe, as they spell it. Essex metallers who released their first album 
during a Britrock revival in early 2003, but have maintained a lower profile 
since. This third LP features a new bass player.

> Next Week
> ---------
> Singles
> -------
> Sean Kingston again, probably. :(

I've yet to see sales figures, but that's the way to go.

> Top 10 : 50 Cent (top 3),

I can't help wondering whether he (or rather Timberlake) is in with a chance 
at Number One?

> Babyshambles

No advance digital release, but they do have a solid record of Top Tens with 
their big single releases.

> Top 20 : Elvis,

They're definitely hitting a level, aren't they? This week's release: 
'Don't'.

>Foo Fighters,

Obviously, they only have one place to climb. It'll be interesting to see 
whether it can get much higher than this, or whether downloads will have 
soaked up too many sales in the last month.

>PB&J

A track that's obviously been available as a download for even longer than 
the Foo Fighters one, but there's probably more single-track interest in 
them, which could help.

> Top 30 : Fall Out Boy

Not if people go into the shops and ask for it by name - they'll never be 
able to complete the transaction in time. ;-)
Seriously, the one before this only tickled the Top 50 and that had a 
vaguely memorable chorus.

> Top 40 :

This space intentionally left blank?

> Any other possibilities?

Yes. I'm sure the Enemy had some anxious moments when the third Twang single 
only got to 33, but I still think they're more likely to get a Top 40 than 
Fall Out Boy.
Ian Brown is very likely to make a big, if brief, splash. Also, Milburn have 
got good, albeit maybe a little too late, and 'Extreme Ways' by Moby is 
coming out again. Apparently it's in a film.
There's also the question of whether any download tracks can climb, I 
suppose. And I think Sugababes might be coming out digitally.

> Albums
> ------
> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an 
> ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10 
> combined!

If he doesn't, the whole record industry might as well give up and go home.

> Top 20 NE : Booty Luv,

There's a Booty Luv album?
Oh, so there is. It doesn't all seem to be covers though, so who knows?

> Rev & The Makers,

Agreed, despite the muted response to the current single.

>Scouting For Girls

Seems highly likely.

For shoppers of a different generation, look out for teenage crooner Peter 
Grant and AOR legend Mark Knopfler. And despite the single, I wouldn't write 
off Status Quo either.

    Chris
-- 
"It's always hard meeting your heroes. Especially when they punch you in the 
face."

http://thehitparade.blogspot.com

More of my blathering is available at
http://faynights.users.btopenworld.com

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Robbie  
wrote :
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an 
>>ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 
>>10  combined!
>>
>
>It would be the biggest shock of all if it doesn't register a healthy 
>sales figure - the record company have shipped 400,000 copies to stores 
>so far, with more on standby. Anything less than 200,000 will a surprise

I expect 300k+.

> but it's getting people into shops in any great numbers to buy music, 
>any music, that is the problem these days - even Blunt himself has said 
>that his worry is that in the digital age a significant amount of 
>people will just cherry pick tracks from his album and download those 
>rather than buying the album in its entirety.

But how will they know which tracks to buy *before* they've bought the 
album? Surely only '1973' will have had much airplay?

In any case, the solution to the above is simply not to initially make 
album cuts available to download individually - make it an 
all-or-nothing purchase, with the option to allow individual track 
purchases at later date.
>
>I think we may see some tracks enter the singles chart too, though I'm 
>not certain if any will go top 75.

That's become quite a normal occurrence now, for tracks from major 
albums.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :

>> Singles
>> -------
>> Sean Kingston still #1, alas.

He'll probably remain there until the Sugababes depose him.
>>
>> New Entries/Climbers
>> --------------------
>> Top 10 : 50 Cent #5
>
>Considering how much they trailed "hearing from 50 Cent later", you might be
>forgiven for expecting more than a repeat of an interview that was barely of
>broadcast quality in the first place.

I didn't listen to it - you mean it full of foul language, or was the 
sound just faint?
>
>> Top 20 :
>
>> Pavarotti #12,
>
>In search of something to add to last week's commentary, I might as well
>mention that Pavarotti is another addition to the list of people who had
>their first UK hit single after their fiftieth birthday, although of course
>he was a well-known name in his own field before he became a pop star.

That's if you regard having a hit single as making you a 'pop star', 
which I don't.
>
>> Elvis #14,
>
>A difficult commentary to pre-draft, this not being one of his more familiar
>songs

A huge drop from it's initial #3 placing, though. The last three have 
all landed at #14 now.

I wonder what the record is for most consecutive singles peaking at the 
same position (excluding #1)?
>
>> White Stripes #18
>
>The snappily-titled 'You Don't Know What Love Is, You Just Do What You're
>Told' is the second single and indeed the second track from the Icky Thump
>LP. The track itself is a bit Stripes-by-numbers, which no doubt made it an
>easy choice of single for the record company, but seems to have failed to
>capture the public's imagination, hence this becomes their first
>studio-recorded single to miss the Top 10 since 2003.

Maybe the #2 position of the first single induced more fans to buy the 
album early, thus undercutting later singles sales more than usual?
>
>> Top 30 : Phil Collins #23,
>
>I suppose if people are going to download a Phil Collins track, it might as
>well be this one.

I guess so.
>
>>Taio Cruz #26,
>
>Supposedly the great hope of British RnB, but unfortunately for him that
>market doesn't seem too keen on trying anyone who hasn't had a hit in
>America.

Or it could just be that the urban market is saturated?
>
>>Chemical Brothers #27
>
>Featuring an uncredited Fatlip (of The Pharcyde)

Who?
>
>>Hi-Tack #38,
>
>The most accurately named band in dance music

Grin.

> return, but people are
>obviously starting to tire of the formula.

With only their 2nd single?
>
>>Akon #40
>
>Physical release TBC. It's already outcharted 'Mama Africa' though, possibly
>because people haven't already got it.

This one is previously unreleased, then? Does that mean we're going to 
have to suffer *another* new album from him soon?
>
>> New outside the top 40 : Status Quo #48,
>
>A rare appearance of a DualDisc in the singles chart, but the novelty of the
>format doesn't seem to have impressed their audience much, maybe because
>there's no extra audio on the disc.
>This isn't exactly classic Quo anyway.

Surely they all sound the same anyway? :)
>
>>Wiil.I.Am #53,
>
>Out on CD & 12" on the 24th. I didn't even know the download had been
>released yet.

Presumably he has a solo album out soon?
>
>>Puressence #56,
>
>Their first single in five years, during which time they've lost a
>major-label contract and a guitarist. It's quite a testament to the loyalty
>of their audience that they've been able to muster even these many sales,
>considering they were never hugely famous to start with.

I didn't even realise they weren't a new band.
>
>>30 Seconds To Mars #57,
>
>Out again on CD & 7" on the 24th.

Which will probably end up being another pointless re-release - barely 
doing better than 1st time.
>
>> HIM #59,
>
>I saw some kids trying to buy this in HMV on Monday, but in the end their
>mum had to find it for them. Maybe the orange-on-orange cover design was a
>mistake.
>Perhaps it's a sign of how sales have increased at the bottom end of the
>chart that this sort of low-visibility metal isn't getting into the Top 40
>any more.

The sales change gets ever more significant the further down the 
listings you look.

There must be some cross-over chart position where sales are better now 
than pre-downloads though, since sales in the upper regions are lower.
>
>>Ash #62,
>
>Supposedly losing out on a Top 40 position because of a "packaging error".
>Ahem.

Like forgetting to include a song people want to buy, perhaps? :)
>
>> Kanye West (Good Life) #69,
>
>Not the most obvious single choice from the few tracks I've heard off this
>album, but maybe that's intentional.

But surely this is just charting as an album cut, not a single?
>
>> T  Rex #71,
>
>One in a series of 7" reissues designed to advertise the anniversary of Marc
>Bolan's demise.

They're not doing a very good job then - maybe 1,500 sales, if that.
>
>>Kate Nash #75
>
>Out on CD & 7"s on the 1st of October.

Not exactly storming the charts though - this is the 3rd week as 'the 
next single'.
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Unfortunately, both rappers finished ahead of my choice, KT Tunstall, with
>> Kanye West prevailing.

>It's unaguably the most anticipated hip-hop disc of 2007 and guaranteed
>massive sales even before he'd finished recording it.

But will it have longevity? Personally, I'd be surprised.

>His big hissy fit at
>the MTV awards might have helped too. Just think how well it might have done
>if he was as good as people say he was.

Or as *he* thinks he is... :)
>
>> NE's (top 20) : 50 Cent #2,
>
>Were there an award for Most Cliched Album Of The Year, he wouldn't have to
>worry about not winning. He's even used his first name as the album title!

As has Sean Kingston, Elvis, Robyn, to name three others in this weeks 
top 75...

>The thing that surprised me most about the success of this one was that I
>didn't think the single had been enough of an airplay hit to push the
>album - but I suppose it's been on the telly a lot.

It *seems* like it, at least - and don't forget the single has already 
charted for a month...
>
>> KT Tunstall #3,
>
> Apparently she had trouble writing enough new material for this album, and
>had to drag some old material out of the cupboard. Which explains a lot,
>probably.

But people surely wouldn't know the age of the songs before they bought 
the album (or didn't, as it appears)?
>
>> Natalie Imbruglia #5,
>
> A brave decision on her record company's part to put this out when there
>were three big blockbuster releases. A brave decision to release a singles
>compilation at all when there have only been nine of them, with the
>obligatory new single being the tenth. Presumably they could have picked
>other highlights from the last two and called it the best of, but presumably
>they thought it would be more lucrative to add more new songs so people
>would have to buy it again.
>It seems to have paid off.

I was pleasantly surprised how well this did.
>
>> Ultrabeat #8,
>
>The surprise of this week's album chart. It's being called their debut,
>although I'm sure I remember them releasing one last year that flopped
>massively.

If true, it really must have bombed badly not to even make the top 
200...
>
>> Kano #14,
>
>Second album from the British MC who seems to have learnt from Taio Cruz
>(although I know that's not really possible) by changing his accent in the
>couple of years since his first album and raking in the guest stars: Craig
>David of course, but also Kate Nash and Damon Albarn, as well as his old
>school choir.

Also, a rare example of an urban record slipping down from its initial 
midweek position.
>
>>Pavorotti #17 (187).
>
>One of many retrospectives rushed (back) onto the shelves for obvious
>reasons.

I dare say one of the biggest chart climbs ever, though.

Bigger even than I stated above, since it was #197 last week not #187.
>
>> Inme #71
>
>Or InMe, as they spell it. Essex metallers who released their first album
>during a Britrock revival in early 2003, but have maintained a lower profile
>since. This third LP features a new bass player.

Not that anyone seems to care, apparently.
>
>> Next Week
>> ---------
>> Singles
>> -------
>> Sean Kingston again, probably. :(
>
>I've yet to see sales figures, but that's the way to go.

I'm guessing around 35k (based on 42k last week).
>
>> Top 10 : 50 Cent (top 3),
>
>I can't help wondering whether he (or rather Timberlake) is in with a chance
>at Number One?

Already sold too many on downloads for that to happen, IMO - around 
50-55k so far.
>
>> Babyshambles
>
>No advance digital release, but they do have a solid record of Top Tens with
>their big single releases.

Although most of those happened before downloads were routinely 
included...
>
>> Top 20 : Elvis,
>
>They're definitely hitting a level, aren't they? This week's release:
>'Don't'.

I'll go out in a limb and say #14, give or take one place. :)
>
>>Foo Fighters,
>
>Obviously, they only have one place to climb. It'll be interesting to see
>whether it can get much higher than this, or whether downloads will have
>soaked up too many sales in the last month.

It doubt it'll manage more than 3 or 4 places higher.
>
>>PB&J
>
>A track that's obviously been available as a download for even longer than
>the Foo Fighters one, but there's probably more single-track interest in
>them, which could help.

It's not typical single chart material, though.
>
>> Top 30 : Fall Out Boy
>
>Not if people go into the shops and ask for it by name - they'll never be
>able to complete the transaction in time. ;-)

Grin.
>
>> Top 40 :
>
>This space intentionally left blank?

Didn't see anything obvious.
>
>> Any other possibilities?

>There's also the question of whether any download tracks can climb, I
>suppose. And I think Sugababes might be coming out digitally.

Top 10 for them, then.
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an
>> ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10
>> combined!
>
>If he doesn't, the whole record industry might as well give up and go home.

300k at least, I'd say.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:nKVVp6CrPi7GFw+3@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> New Entries/Climbers
>>> --------------------
>>> Top 10 : 50 Cent #5
>>
>>Considering how much they trailed "hearing from 50 Cent later", you might 
>>be
>>forgiven for expecting more than a repeat of an interview that was barely 
>>of
>>broadcast quality in the first place.
>
> I didn't listen to it - you mean it full of foul language, or was the 
> sound just faint?

It sounded as if he was communicating through a tin can on the end of a 
string. It didn't sound like he was swearing, but then they wouldn't have 
played it if he was.
It wasn't even an interesting interview, being rather of the "why are you so 
brilliant?" variety.

>>> Top 20 :
>>
>>> Pavarotti #12,
>>
>>In search of something to add to last week's commentary, I might as well
>>mention that Pavarotti is another addition to the list of people who had
>>their first UK hit single after their fiftieth birthday, although of 
>>course
>>he was a well-known name in his own field before he became a pop star.
>
> That's if you regard having a hit single as making you a 'pop star', which 
> I don't.

OK, but you know what I was saying there.

>>> Elvis #14,
>>
>>A difficult commentary to pre-draft, this not being one of his more 
>>familiar
>>songs
>
> A huge drop from it's initial #3 placing, though. The last three have all 
> landed at #14 now.
>
> I wonder what the record is for most consecutive singles peaking at the 
> same position (excluding #1)?

I don't know offhand, but I do know from ChcMedia that he now holds the 
record for most singles peaking at 14 (if you count these last three as 
peaks, because the songs obviously all reached higher positions in the 50s), 
and 'Teddy Bear' is the second single ever to drop out of the Top 75 from 
14.

>>> White Stripes #18
>>
>>The snappily-titled 'You Don't Know What Love Is, You Just Do What You're
>>Told' is the second single and indeed the second track from the Icky Thump
>>LP. The track itself is a bit Stripes-by-numbers, which no doubt made it 
>>an
>>easy choice of single for the record company, but seems to have failed to
>>capture the public's imagination, hence this becomes their first
>>studio-recorded single to miss the Top 10 since 2003.
>
> Maybe the #2 position of the first single induced more fans to buy the 
> album early, thus undercutting later singles sales more than usual?

Well, I don't think the fact that it was Number 2 would sell it to people 
who would refuse to buy an album with a Number 8 single on it. But obviously 
that first single was a popular track in its own right; I can't actually 
find a first-week sales figure for the Icky Thump album but I doubt it was a 
lot higher than the 70k Get Behind Me Satan managed. I think the point is 
more that, compared to something like 'My Doorbell', this track won't really 
appeal to anyone who isn't already a confirmed fan.

>>>Taio Cruz #26,
>>
>>Supposedly the great hope of British RnB, but unfortunately for him that
>>market doesn't seem too keen on trying anyone who hasn't had a hit in
>>America.
>
> Or it could just be that the urban market is saturated?

Doesn't seem to be doing anyone else any harm!

>>>Chemical Brothers #27
>>
>>Featuring an uncredited Fatlip (of The Pharcyde)
>
> Who?

Er, he was one of the members of The Pharcyde, who had a Number 36 hit with 
'Runnin'' in 1996. His real name appears to be Derek Stewart.
I never said he was famous, did I?

>>>Hi-Tack #38,
>>
>>The most accurately named band in dance music
>
> Grin.
>
>> return, but people are
>>obviously starting to tire of the formula.
>
> With only their 2nd single?

In this guise, yes, but it's an idea you can get tired of quickly. ;-)
What I really mean is that it's not just them doing it - it's also 
Beatfreakz, Uniting Nations, Supermode...

>>>Akon #40
>>
>>Physical release TBC. It's already outcharted 'Mama Africa' though, 
>>possibly
>>because people haven't already got it.
>
> This one is previously unreleased, then?

Yes, although it's been on the net for months.

> Does that mean we're going to have to suffer *another* new album from him 
> soon?

No, this is being appended to the current one.

>>> New outside the top 40 : Status Quo #48,
>>

>>This isn't exactly classic Quo anyway.
>
> Surely they all sound the same anyway? :)

Of course they're not known for their stylistic diversity (give or take the 
odd dalliance like 'In The Army Now') but the best Quo records have a 
certain undeniable solidity about them. I heard this and 'Down Down' in 
close succession the other day, and the comparison wasn't flattering.

>>>Wiil.I.Am #53,
>>
>>Out on CD & 12" on the 24th. I didn't even know the download had been
>>released yet.
>
> Presumably he has a solo album out soon?

I think so, although I can't remember exactly when.

>>>Puressence #56,
>>
>>Their first single in five years, during which time they've lost a
>>major-label contract and a guitarist. It's quite a testament to the 
>>loyalty
>>of their audience that they've been able to muster even these many sales,
>>considering they were never hugely famous to start with.
>
> I didn't even realise they weren't a new band.

It'd be easy to miss, given the limited amount of success they had 
previously. Somebody's put a load of their videos up on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Puressence89

>>>30 Seconds To Mars #57,
>>
>>Out again on CD & 7" on the 24th.
>
> Which will probably end up being another pointless re-release - barely 
> doing better than 1st time.

It already has - even on physicals the original was only Number 64.

>>>Ash #62,
>>
>>Supposedly losing out on a Top 40 position because of a "packaging error".
>>Ahem.
>
> Like forgetting to include a song people want to buy, perhaps? :)

Apparently "some" 7" copies (presumably that means one of the two formats) 
didn't have barcodes. But I'm doubtful that it was going to sell enough 
copies in that form to name 20-something places of difference.

>>> Kanye West (Good Life) #69,
>>
>>Not the most obvious single choice from the few tracks I've heard off this
>>album, but maybe that's intentional.
>
> But surely this is just charting as an album cut, not a single?

It is, but I have heard it said that this one is already intended as the 
next single. Presumably that's why people are downloading it.

>>> T  Rex #71,
>>
>>One in a series of 7" reissues designed to advertise the anniversary of 
>>Marc
>>Bolan's demise.
>
> They're not doing a very good job then - maybe 1,500 sales, if that.

I presume these are limited pressings, but I don't actually know how many of 
them there are.
If this has sold more than the previous ones, I presume that represents 
extra download sales.

>>>Kate Nash #75
>>
>>Out on CD & 7"s on the 1st of October.
>
> Not exactly storming the charts though - this is the 3rd week as 'the next 
> single'.

A lot longer than that - it's been down as that as long as the album's been 
available. But obviously it wasn't being fully promoted until more recently.

>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Unfortunately, both rappers finished ahead of my choice, KT Tunstall, 
>>> with
>>> Kanye West prevailing.
>
>>It's unaguably the most anticipated hip-hop disc of 2007 and guaranteed
>>massive sales even before he'd finished recording it.
>
> But will it have longevity? Personally, I'd be surprised.

His last one did OK.

>>His big hissy fit at
>>the MTV awards might have helped too. Just think how well it might have 
>>done
>>if he was as good as people say he was.
>
> Or as *he* thinks he is... :)

Let's not get unrealistic.

>>> NE's (top 20) : 50 Cent #2,
>>
>>Were there an award for Most Cliched Album Of The Year, he wouldn't have 
>>to
>>worry about not winning. He's even used his first name as the album title!
>
> As has Sean Kingston, Elvis, Robyn, to name three others in this weeks top 
> 75...

I hadn't noticed Sean Kingston doing it, and I'm not sure I count Robyn as 
she only uses her first name anyway.

>>> KT Tunstall #3,
>>
>> Apparently she had trouble writing enough new material for this album, 
>> and
>>had to drag some old material out of the cupboard. Which explains a lot,
>>probably.
>
> But people surely wouldn't know the age of the songs before they bought 
> the album (or didn't, as it appears)?

Well, no, and they won't know afterwards either unless they read it 
somewhere (as I did). But the point was that some of these songs were 
written before Eye To The Telescope so, by implication, they were rejected 
for that album.

>>> Ultrabeat #8,
>>
>>The surprise of this week's album chart. It's being called their debut,
>>although I'm sure I remember them releasing one last year that flopped
>>massively.
>
> If true, it really must have bombed badly not to even make the top 200...

Yeah, I know, and for that reason I wonder whether it might have been 
cancelled at the last minute or something.

>>>Pavorotti #17 (187).
>>
>>One of many retrospectives rushed (back) onto the shelves for obvious
>>reasons.
>
> I dare say one of the biggest chart climbs ever, though.
>
> Bigger even than I stated above, since it was #197 last week not #187.

Wow! There can't have been a lot of copies around before.

>>> Next Week
>>> ---------
>>> Singles
>>> -------
>>> Sean Kingston again, probably. :(
>>
>>I've yet to see sales figures, but that's the way to go.
>
> I'm guessing around 35k (based on 42k last week).

That's believable.

>>> Top 10 : 50 Cent (top 3),
>>
>>I can't help wondering whether he (or rather Timberlake) is in with a 
>>chance
>>at Number One?
>
> Already sold too many on downloads for that to happen, IMO - around 50-55k 
> so far.

This is why I wouldn't put it any stronger than "chance".

>>> Babyshambles
>>
>>No advance digital release, but they do have a solid record of Top Tens 
>>with
>>their big single releases.
>
> Although most of those happened before downloads were routinely 
> included...

They did, but that's not necessarily going to be decisive.

>>> Top 20 : Elvis,
>>
>>They're definitely hitting a level, aren't they? This week's release:
>>'Don't'.
>
> I'll go out in a limb and say #14, give or take one place. :)

I may hold you to that. ;P

>>>Foo Fighters,
>>
>>Obviously, they only have one place to climb. It'll be interesting to see
>>whether it can get much higher than this, or whether downloads will have
>>soaked up too many sales in the last month.
>
> It doubt it'll manage more than 3 or 4 places higher.

They (or rather the record company) haven't helped their case much by 
putting the two CD formats in identical sleeves. I bought the 7" anyway.

>>>PB&J
>>
>>A track that's obviously been available as a download for even longer than
>>the Foo Fighters one, but there's probably more single-track interest in
>>them, which could help.
>
> It's not typical single chart material, though.

No, but that cuts both ways with a record that's actually got some 
attention, as this has.

>>There's also the question of whether any download tracks can climb, I
>>suppose. And I think Sugababes might be coming out digitally.
>
> Top 10 for them, then.

Unless it's at the end of the week, like the Girls Aloud one.

    Chris

"Robbie"  wrote in message
news:5l5d7gF6fe21U1@mid.individual.net...
> Paul Hyett wrote:
>
>> Albums
>> ------
>> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an
>> ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10
>> combined!
>>
>
> It would be the biggest shock of all if it doesn't register a healthy
> sales figure - the record company have shipped 400,000 copies to stores so
> far, with more on standby. Anything less than 200,000 will a surprise but
> it's getting people into shops in any great numbers to buy music, any
> music, that is the problem these days - even Blunt himself has said that
> his worry is that in the digital age a significant amount of people will
> just cherry pick tracks from his album and download those rather than
> buying the album in its entirety.

Apparently he's even accused iTunes of not promoting albums, which isn't 
entirely true - they do offer albums at a bundle price which normally works 
out cheaper than buying the individual tracks - except when it's by someone 
who can't come up with more than ten tracks for an album. Ahem.
And of course, downloads existed two years ago, and probably helped him to 
the top of the singles chart. Perhaps he's concerned by the relatively high 
"disappointment rate" from his first album.

> I think we may see some tracks enter the singles chart too, though I'm not
> certain if any will go top 75.

Yeah, I don't know if there's any one track that will be enough of a focal 
point.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>>> Albums
>>> ------
>>> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an
>>> ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10
>>> combined!
>>>
>And of course, downloads existed two years ago, and probably helped him to
>the top of the singles chart.

I doubt it.

Even if they counted back then, which I'm not sure about, they would 
only have made a tiny contribution to his overall sales.

>Perhaps he's concerned by the relatively high
>"disappointment rate" from his first album.

I haven't heard anything about that, before?
>
>> I think we may see some tracks enter the singles chart too, though I'm not
>> certain if any will go top 75.
>
>Yeah, I don't know if there's any one track that will be enough of a focal
>point.
>
I wouldn't be too surprised if several do.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>> New Entries/Climbers
>>>> --------------------
>>>> Elvis #14,
>>>
>>>A difficult commentary to pre-draft, this not being one of his more
>>>familiar
>>>songs
>>
>> A huge drop from it's initial #3 placing, though. The last three have all
>> landed at #14 now.
>>
>> I wonder what the record is for most consecutive singles peaking at the
>> same position (excluding #1)?
>
>I don't know offhand, but I do know from ChcMedia that he now holds the
>record for most singles peaking at 14 (if you count these last three as
>peaks, because the songs obviously all reached higher positions in the 50s)

Well, if the 2005 re-releases counted as 'new' #1's (which I don't agree 
with, BTW), then the positions of these must be counted as peaks.
>,
>and 'Teddy Bear' is the second single ever to drop out of the Top 75 from
>14.

It may not be the last, though...
>
>>>>Taio Cruz #26,
>>>
>>>Supposedly the great hope of British RnB, but unfortunately for him that
>>>market doesn't seem too keen on trying anyone who hasn't had a hit in
>>>America.
>>
>> Or it could just be that the urban market is saturated?
>
>Doesn't seem to be doing anyone else any harm!

Does 'raising my blood pressure' count as harm? :)
>
>>>>Chemical Brothers #27
>>>
>>>Featuring an uncredited Fatlip (of The Pharcyde)
>>
>> Who?
>
>Er, he was one of the members of The Pharcyde, who had a Number 36 hit with
>'Runnin'' in 1996. His real name appears to be Derek Stewart.
>I never said he was famous, did I?

I barely even know the *major* acts from the 90's, let alone the one hit 
wonders...
>
>>>>Akon #40
>>
>> This one is previously unreleased, then?
>
>Yes, although it's been on the net for months.
>
>> Does that mean we're going to have to suffer *another* new album from him
>> soon?
>
>No, this is being appended to the current one.

That's a relief.
>
>>>>Wiil.I.Am #53,
>>>
>>>Out on CD & 12" on the 24th. I didn't even know the download had been
>>>released yet.
>>
>> Presumably he has a solo album out soon?
>
>I think so, although I can't remember exactly when.

I'm beginning to wonder of he has a mother fixation though, what with 
this one, and the previous BEP 'Hey Mama'... :)
>
>>>>Puressence #56,
>>
>> I didn't even realise they weren't a new band.
>
>It'd be easy to miss, given the limited amount of success they had
>previously. Somebody's put a load of their videos up on Youtube:
>http://www.youtube.com/user/Puressence89

Are there *any* videos *not* on Youtube now? :)
>
>>>>30 Seconds To Mars #57,
>>>
>>>Out again on CD & 7" on the 24th.
>>
>> Which will probably end up being another pointless re-release - barely
>> doing better than 1st time.
>
>It already has - even on physicals the original was only Number 64.

OK, but it's not like they've had a big hit since then to raise their 
profile dramatically. It may scrape top 40 on full release.
>
>>>> Kanye West (Good Life) #69,
>>>
>>>Not the most obvious single choice from the few tracks I've heard off this
>>>album, but maybe that's intentional.
>>
>> But surely this is just charting as an album cut, not a single?
>
>It is, but I have heard it said that this one is already intended as the
>next single.

Checking... it *is* listed in the 'Coming Soon' section of the new 
release schedule.

>Presumably that's why people are downloading it.

The more the better at this stage then - that, along with album sales, 
will reduce its peak position on full release.
>
>>>> T  Rex #71,
>>>
>>>One in a series of 7" reissues designed to advertise the anniversary of
>>>Marc
>>>Bolan's demise.
>>
>> They're not doing a very good job then - maybe 1,500 sales, if that.
>
>I presume these are limited pressings, but I don't actually know how many of
>them there are.
>If this has sold more than the previous ones, I presume that represents
>extra download sales.

Unless they've already pressed all the CD's, ISTM abandoning the 
re-releases makes sense, especially with the GH album release too.
>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>>>> Unfortunately, both rappers finished ahead of my choice, KT Tunstall,
>>>> with
>>>> Kanye West prevailing.
>>
>>>It's unaguably the most anticipated hip-hop disc of 2007 and guaranteed
>>>massive sales even before he'd finished recording it.
>>
>> But will it have longevity? Personally, I'd be surprised.
>
>His last one did OK.

But that one didn't blow out most of its sales early on...
>
>>>>Pavorotti #17 (187).
>>>
>>>One of many retrospectives rushed (back) onto the shelves for obvious
>>>reasons.
>>
>> I dare say one of the biggest chart climbs ever, though.
>>
>> Bigger even than I stated above, since it was #197 last week not #187.
>
>Wow! There can't have been a lot of copies around before.

Well, it was *supposed* to have been released in November.
>
>>>> Next Week
>>>> ---------
>>>> Singles
>>>> -------
>>>> Sean Kingston again, probably. :(
>>>
>>>I've yet to see sales figures, but that's the way to go.
>>
>> I'm guessing around 35k (based on 42k last week).
>
>That's believable.

At least in terms of a % drop from the previous week, but as to *how* it 
sold that many...
>
>>>> Top 10 : 50 Cent (top 3),
>>>
>>>I can't help wondering whether he (or rather Timberlake) is in with a
>>>chance
>>>at Number One?
>>
>> Already sold too many on downloads for that to happen, IMO - around 50-55k
>> so far.
>
>This is why I wouldn't put it any stronger than "chance".

Anything has a *chance* of being #1...
>
>>>> Babyshambles
>>>
>>>No advance digital release, but they do have a solid record of Top Tens
>>>with
>>>their big single releases.
>>
>> Although most of those happened before downloads were routinely
>> included...
>
>They did, but that's not necessarily going to be decisive.

On a related issue, I'd be very surprised if any single (other than 
X-Factor or Charity) could now sell enough just on physical copies to be 
#1.
>
>
>>>>Foo Fighters,
>>
>> It doubt it'll manage more than 3 or 4 places higher.
>
>They (or rather the record company) haven't helped their case much by
>putting the two CD formats in identical sleeves. I bought the 7" anyway.

I was starting to wonder who buys their songs...
>
>>>There's also the question of whether any download tracks can climb, I
>>>suppose. And I think Sugababes might be coming out digitally.
>>
>> Top 10 for them, then.
>
>Unless it's at the end of the week, like the Girls Aloud one.

That's always the problem with predicting download release positions.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:IelesODr927GFw7h@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------
>>>>> New Entries/Climbers
>>>>> --------------------
>>>>> Elvis #14,
>>>>
>>>>A difficult commentary to pre-draft, this not being one of his more
>>>>familiar
>>>>songs
>>>
>>> A huge drop from it's initial #3 placing, though. The last three have 
>>> all
>>> landed at #14 now.
>>>
>>> I wonder what the record is for most consecutive singles peaking at the
>>> same position (excluding #1)?
>>
>>I don't know offhand, but I do know from ChcMedia that he now holds the
>>record for most singles peaking at 14 (if you count these last three as
>>peaks, because the songs obviously all reached higher positions in the 
>>50s)
>
> Well, if the 2005 re-releases counted as 'new' #1's (which I don't agree 
> with, BTW), then the positions of these must be counted as peaks.


Yeah, I think I'll count those.

>>and 'Teddy Bear' is the second single ever to drop out of the Top 75 from
>>14.
>
> It may not be the last, though...

Probably not. Let's look out for 'Party'.


>>>>>Wiil.I.Am #53,
>>>>
>>>>Out on CD & 12" on the 24th. I didn't even know the download had been
>>>>released yet.
>>>
>>> Presumably he has a solo album out soon?
>>
>>I think so, although I can't remember exactly when.
>
> I'm beginning to wonder of he has a mother fixation though, what with this 
> one, and the previous BEP 'Hey Mama'... :)

He seems quite obessesed with arses as well.

>>>>>Puressence #56,
>>>
>>> I didn't even realise they weren't a new band.
>>
>>It'd be easy to miss, given the limited amount of success they had
>>previously. Somebody's put a load of their videos up on Youtube:
>>http://www.youtube.com/user/Puressence89
>
> Are there *any* videos *not* on Youtube now? :)

Yeah - quite a lot get taken down because Viacom complain. I presume that in 
this case, whoever Puressence89 is has access to originals of the videos.

>>>>>30 Seconds To Mars #57,
>>>>
>>>>Out again on CD & 7" on the 24th.
>>>
>>> Which will probably end up being another pointless re-release - barely
>>> doing better than 1st time.
>>
>>It already has - even on physicals the original was only Number 64.
>
> OK, but it's not like they've had a big hit since then to raise their 
> profile dramatically.

They haven't but they've been on tour to apparently good receptions.

>>>>> T  Rex #71,
>>>>
>>>>One in a series of 7" reissues designed to advertise the anniversary of
>>>>Marc
>>>>Bolan's demise.
>>>
>>> They're not doing a very good job then - maybe 1,500 sales, if that.
>>
>>I presume these are limited pressings, but I don't actually know how many 
>>of
>>them there are.
>>If this has sold more than the previous ones, I presume that represents
>>extra download sales.
>
> Unless they've already pressed all the CD's,

There are no CDs - these are 7" singles, remember.

>ISTM abandoning the re-releases makes sense, especially with the GH album 
>release too.

It's not as if the record company didn't know they were going to release a 
Greatest Hits album!

>>>>> Albums
>>>>> ------
>>>>>Pavorotti #17 (187).
>>>>
>>>>One of many retrospectives rushed (back) onto the shelves for obvious
>>>>reasons.
>>>
>>> I dare say one of the biggest chart climbs ever, though.
>>>
>>> Bigger even than I stated above, since it was #197 last week not #187.
>>
>>Wow! There can't have been a lot of copies around before.
>
> Well, it was *supposed* to have been released in November.

Presumably they were rushing them into the shops as fast as they could.

>>>>> Next Week
>>>>> ---------
>>>>> Singles
>>>>> -------

>>
>>>>> Top 10 : 50 Cent (top 3),
>>>>
>>>>I can't help wondering whether he (or rather Timberlake) is in with a
>>>>chance
>>>>at Number One?
>>>
>>> Already sold too many on downloads for that to happen, IMO - around 
>>> 50-55k
>>> so far.
>>
>>This is why I wouldn't put it any stronger than "chance".
>
> Anything has a *chance* of being #1...

Nowadays, I suppose that's true.

>>>>>Foo Fighters,
>>>
>>> It doubt it'll manage more than 3 or 4 places higher.
>>
>>They (or rather the record company) haven't helped their case much by
>>putting the two CD formats in identical sleeves. I bought the 7" anyway.
>
> I was starting to wonder who buys their songs...

Sorry to disappoint, but this is the first time I've actually bought one of 
their singles.

>>>>There's also the question of whether any download tracks can climb, I
>>>>suppose. And I think Sugababes might be coming out digitally.
>>>
>>> Top 10 for them, then.
>>
>>Unless it's at the end of the week, like the Girls Aloud one.
>
> That's always the problem with predicting download release positions.

Well, it is at least possible to look that up. According to 7digital it's 
already there, but only in remix versions.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:$eWTcuBni27GFwcW@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Mon, 17 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>>> Albums
>>>> ------
>>>> Absolutely *NO* doubt about this week's winner - James Blunt by an
>>>> ENORMOUS margin. I suspect he'll sell as much as the rest of the top 10
>>>> combined!
>>>>
>>And of course, downloads existed two years ago, and probably helped him to
>>the top of the singles chart.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> Even if they counted back then, which I'm not sure about, they would only
> have made a tiny contribution to his overall sales.

I can't vouch for the proportions of sales, but they certainly were 
counting - the first chart to incorporate downloads had Tony Christie at 
Number One and 'You're Beautiful' was weeks after that. I'd guess from the 
extent to which downloads kept the track in the charts after the CD was 
deleted that they were selling in appreciable numbers.
He didn't complain then, is all I'm saying.

>>Perhaps he's concerned by the relatively high
>>"disappointment rate" from his first album.
>
> I haven't heard anything about that, before?

It's a purely anecdotal impression on my part, but it seems like a lot of 
people who bought the album have been saying they didn't like the rest of 
it.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>>>>
>>>And of course, downloads existed two years ago, and probably helped him to
>>>the top of the singles chart.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> Even if they counted back then, which I'm not sure about, they would only
>> have made a tiny contribution to his overall sales.
>
>I can't vouch for the proportions of sales, but they certainly were
>counting - the first chart to incorporate downloads had Tony Christie at
>Number One

Ah - I probably repressed my memory from that point in time, then. :)

> and 'You're Beautiful' was weeks after that.

I remember he took 7 weeks to reach #1, which hadn't happened for quite 
a while before that.

>I'd guess from the
>extent to which downloads kept the track in the charts after the CD was
>deleted that they were selling in appreciable numbers.

Just 2 weeks after surely, because of the deletion/exclusion rules?
>
>>>Perhaps he's concerned by the relatively high
>>>"disappointment rate" from his first album.
>>
>> I haven't heard anything about that, before?
>
>It's a purely anecdotal impression on my part, but it seems like a lot of
>people who bought the album have been saying they didn't like the rest of
>it.

As you say, that is totally subjective, though sales of follow-up albums 
may give some impression.

If a subsequent album returns to the original quality (as with Mariah 
Carey & 'Emancipation of Mimi') it is likely to be a steady seller, 
rather than a front-loaded one, due to word-of-mouth taking time to work 
through the fanbase.

On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban 
influenced as her last? Also, will she be wearing as skimpy and/or 
figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>>
>>>I don't know offhand, but I do know from ChcMedia that he now holds the
>>>record for most singles peaking at 14 (if you count these last three as
>>>peaks, because the songs obviously all reached higher positions in the
>>>50s)
>>
>> Well, if the 2005 re-releases counted as 'new' #1's (which I don't agree
>> with, BTW), then the positions of these must be counted as peaks.
>
>Yeah, I think I'll count those.

Why are they counted as if they were new singles though?
>>
>> Are there *any* videos *not* on Youtube now? :)
>
>Yeah - quite a lot get taken down because Viacom complain.

I thought Viacom were a TV company, not a record company, though?

What a sad organisation though, if they employ someone solely to scour 
the WWW for copyright breaches. It's not like anyone even makes money at 
their expense via Youtube postings!

Not to mention it's like swimming against a flood - for every site you 
close down, another springs up in its place, and if people feel bullied 
by big corporations, then it's more likely to be *ten* new sites... :)
>
>>>>>>30 Seconds To Mars #57,
>>
>> OK, but it's not like they've had a big hit since then to raise their
>> profile dramatically.
>
>They haven't but they've been on tour to apparently good receptions.

But what size venues have they been playing? For all I know, they might 
only have been playing pubs, where a rapturous reception might only be 
30 people... :)
>
>>>>>> T  Rex #71,

>>>If this has sold more than the previous ones, I presume that represents
>>>extra download sales.
>>
>> Unless they've already pressed all the CD's,
>
>There are no CDs - these are 7" singles, remember.

OK, but exactly the same applies.
>
>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>Foo Fighters,
>>>
>>>They (or rather the record company) haven't helped their case much by
>>>putting the two CD formats in identical sleeves. I bought the 7" anyway.
>>
>> I was starting to wonder who buys their songs...
>
>Sorry to disappoint, but this is the first time I've actually bought one of
>their singles.

What about their albums...?
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Paul Hyett wrote:
> In uk.music.charts on Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>> And of course, downloads existed two years ago, and probably helped 
>>>> him to
>>>> the top of the singles chart.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> Even if they counted back then, which I'm not sure about, they would 
>>> only
>>> have made a tiny contribution to his overall sales.
>>
>> I can't vouch for the proportions of sales, but they certainly were
>> counting - the first chart to incorporate downloads had Tony Christie at
>> Number One
> 
> Ah - I probably repressed my memory from that point in time, then. :)
> 
>> and 'You're Beautiful' was weeks after that.
> 
> I remember he took 7 weeks to reach #1, which hadn't happened for quite 
> a while before that.
> 
>> I'd guess from the
>> extent to which downloads kept the track in the charts after the CD was
>> deleted that they were selling in appreciable numbers.
> 
> Just 2 weeks after surely, because of the deletion/exclusion rules?

That rule didn't come in until March 2006, at which point You're 
Beautiful was then excluded from the chart. Prior to that, it didn't 
matter if a single was deleted.

Incidentally re: his new album, while still good sales, his opening day 
sale of 36k translates as being roughly about an estimated 140,000 over 
the week - a bit of a disappointment, and this was going to be one of 
the big albums that the industry were pinning hopes on.

>>
>>>> Perhaps he's concerned by the relatively high
>>>> "disappointment rate" from his first album.
>>>
>>> I haven't heard anything about that, before?
>>
>> It's a purely anecdotal impression on my part, but it seems like a lot of
>> people who bought the album have been saying they didn't like the rest of
>> it.
> 
> As you say, that is totally subjective, though sales of follow-up albums 
> may give some impression.
> 
> If a subsequent album returns to the original quality (as with Mariah 
> Carey & 'Emancipation of Mimi') it is likely to be a steady seller, 
> rather than a front-loaded one, due to word-of-mouth taking time to work 
> through the fanbase.
> 
> On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban 
> influenced as her last? Also, will she be wearing as skimpy and/or 
> figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...

Her tits are quite floppy now - I think she could do with wearing 
something a bit more sensible these days...


-- 
Robbie

In uk.music.charts on Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Robbie  
wrote :

>>  If a subsequent album returns to the original quality (as with 
>>Mariah  Carey & 'Emancipation of Mimi') it is likely to be a steady 
>>seller,  rather than a front-loaded one, due to word-of-mouth taking 
>>time to work  through the fanbase.

>>  On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as 
>>urban  influenced as her last? Also, will she be wearing as skimpy 
>>and/or  figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...
>
>Her tits are quite floppy now

I have no problem with that - it proves they are real, at least. :)

> - I think she could do with wearing something a bit more sensible 
>these days...

Nah - she should keep wearing the low cut stuff, she just needs better 
support...
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:GlNtiYEXGM8GFwAY@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>>
>>>>I don't know offhand, but I do know from ChcMedia that he now holds the
>>>>record for most singles peaking at 14 (if you count these last three as
>>>>peaks, because the songs obviously all reached higher positions in the
>>>>50s)
>>>
>>> Well, if the 2005 re-releases counted as 'new' #1's (which I don't agree
>>> with, BTW), then the positions of these must be counted as peaks.
>>
>>Yeah, I think I'll count those.
>
> Why are they counted as if they were new singles though?

The rule the books use is that a new catalogue number = a new release even 
if the contents are the same. Of course they haven't yet had to deal with 
records that chart with no physical single at all.
These particular re-issues are different in content from the originals 
anyway, because they're CDs or 10" vinyl singles, neither of which they 
appeared on in the fifties, and they're all three-trackers. AFAIK they're 
all in stereo too. But the precedent in the books is to treat even musically 
identical releases with different numbers (which of course happens more 
often with albums) as seperate entities and equally to count different ones 
with the same number as re-entries. Confused? You will be.

>>> Are there *any* videos *not* on Youtube now? :)
>>
>>Yeah - quite a lot get taken down because Viacom complain.
>
> I thought Viacom were a TV company, not a record company, though?

They are indeed, but they own MTV and VH1 (and the various spin-off 
channels) from where a lot of old videos on YouTube have been taped.

> What a sad organisation though, if they employ someone solely to scour the 
> WWW for copyright breaches. It's not like anyone even makes money at their 
> expense via Youtube postings!

Their argument would be that they do lose money, because if people watch 
Viacom's content on their TV channels (or, I suppose, on their websites) 
that contributes to their advertising revenue. If they watch it on YouTube, 
it adds to Google's ad revenue.

> Not to mention it's like swimming against a flood - for every site you 
> close down, another springs up in its place, and if people feel bullied by 
> big corporations, then it's more likely to be *ten* new sites... :)

Well, I don't think Viacom could shut YouTube down (other than by leaving it 
with such a massive legal bill that it went bust, which would be difficult) 
as it's a fundamentally legal site. What they want YouTube to do is stop 
people from posting stuff that they [ie the posters] don't own, although I 
think you're right in saying that that's effectively impossible.

>>>>>>>30 Seconds To Mars #57,
>>>
>>> OK, but it's not like they've had a big hit since then to raise their
>>> profile dramatically.
>>
>>They haven't but they've been on tour to apparently good receptions.
>
> But what size venues have they been playing? For all I know, they might 
> only have been playing pubs, where a rapturous reception might only be 30 
> people... :)

They played one of the big London venues, but I can't remember offhand which 
one.

>>>>>>> T  Rex #71,
>
>>>>If this has sold more than the previous ones, I presume that represents
>>>>extra download sales.
>>>
>>> Unless they've already pressed all the CD's,
>>
>>There are no CDs - these are 7" singles, remember.
>
> OK, but exactly the same applies.

Sort of, except that they wouldn't have done that expecting them to go Top 
10 or whatever - unlike, say, those Bob Marley ones a couple of years ago.

>>>>>>> Next Week
>>>>>>> ---------
>>>>>>> Singles
>>>>>>> -------
>>>>>>>Foo Fighters,
>>>>
>>>>They (or rather the record company) haven't helped their case much by
>>>>putting the two CD formats in identical sleeves. I bought the 7" anyway.
>>>
>>> I was starting to wonder who buys their songs...
>>
>>Sorry to disappoint, but this is the first time I've actually bought one 
>>of
>>their singles.
>
> What about their albums...?

I've got two of them. I can tell you which ones if you really want to know.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:Fz9NnQDW3L8GFwQG@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>>>>
>>>>And of course, downloads existed two years ago, and probably helped him
>>>>to
>>>>the top of the singles chart.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> Even if they counted back then, which I'm not sure about, they would
>>> only
>>> have made a tiny contribution to his overall sales.
>>
>>I can't vouch for the proportions of sales, but they certainly were
>>counting - the first chart to incorporate downloads had Tony Christie at
>>Number One
>
> Ah - I probably repressed my memory from that point in time, then. :)

I'm guessing you've forgotten the time when it looked like Blunt would be at 
the top of an Elton-John-based Top Three too? Wish I had.

>> and 'You're Beautiful' was weeks after that.
>
> I remember he took 7 weeks to reach #1, which hadn't happened for quite a
> while before that.

Indeed so, and I think we all attributed that to the downloads at the time. 
Whether it was true or not I can't really recall.

>>I'd guess from the
>>extent to which downloads kept the track in the charts after the CD was
>>deleted that they were selling in appreciable numbers.
>
> Just 2 weeks after surely, because of the deletion/exclusion rules?

No, because we didn't have those rules yet - indeed I suspect this track 
inspired them. IIRC it was in the Top 75 right up until those came into 
force though.

>>>>Perhaps he's concerned by the relatively high
>>>>"disappointment rate" from his first album.
>>>
>>> I haven't heard anything about that, before?
>>
>>It's a purely anecdotal impression on my part, but it seems like a lot of
>>people who bought the album have been saying they didn't like the rest of
>>it.
>
> As you say, that is totally subjective, though sales of follow-up albums
> may give some impression.

Some, although it obviously won't be definitive - I don't think David Gray 
had the same sort of response and his follow-up albums still haven't sold as 
well.

> If a subsequent album returns to the original quality (as with Mariah
> Carey & 'Emancipation of Mimi') it is likely to be a steady seller, rather
> than a front-loaded one, due to word-of-mouth taking time to work through
> the fanbase.

There's something in that, although Blunt doesn't really have form to return 
to - I don't mean that as an insult, it's just that he's now following his 
first hit album.
Of course in the specific case of Mariah, it was the second single that was 
the biggest success.

> On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban
> influenced as her last?

I'm sure her strategy department are working on that even now.

> Also, will she be wearing as skimpy and/or
> figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...

Of course. What else is she going to do?

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>
>>> and 'You're Beautiful' was weeks after that.
>>
>> I remember he took 7 weeks to reach #1, which hadn't happened for quite a
>> while before that.
>
>Indeed so, and I think we all attributed that to the downloads at the time.
>Whether it was true or not I can't really recall.

Checking back...

It was out to download two weeks before it was out on CD, and was #34 & 
#21 on those non-counting weeks. From 11/6, its positions on both charts

Combined : 12, 6, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 10, 18, 27, 33, 40...
Download : 15, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3,  3,  8,  9, 12, 14...

Of course, downloads were a much smaller proportion of overall sales 
back then, so a high position in that chart wasn't necessarily reflected 
in the combined one.
>
>>>I'd guess from the
>>>extent to which downloads kept the track in the charts after the CD was
>>>deleted that they were selling in appreciable numbers.
>>
>> Just 2 weeks after surely, because of the deletion/exclusion rules?
>
>No, because we didn't have those rules yet - indeed I suspect this track
>inspired them. IIRC it was in the Top 75 right up until those came into
>force though.

Correct - it was still #50 the week before its exclusion. It pops in & 
out of the top 200 even now (#156 this week).
>
>
>> On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban
>> influenced as her last?
>
>I'm sure her strategy department are working on that even now.

I'd hope they'd have that finalised by now, since the album is due out 
in just over 8 weeks! Curiously though, I don't see a single listed yet 
on the NR schedule.
>
>> Also, will she be wearing as skimpy and/or
>> figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...
>
>Of course. What else is she going to do?

Well, unlike most of the other physically attractive female pop stars, 
she has a great voice too. Don't forget she had a number of big hits 
even before she started to exploit her physical attributes.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Why are they counted as if they were new singles though?
>
>The rule the books use is that a new catalogue number = a new release even
>if the contents are the same. Of course they haven't yet had to deal with
>records that chart with no physical single at all.

Maybe that's why Guinness chickened out of a new edition this year? :)

>But the precedent in the books is to treat even musically
>identical releases with different numbers (which of course happens more
>often with albums) as seperate entities and equally to count different ones
>with the same number as re-entries. Confused? You will be.

I don't get why they are so hung up over catalogue numbers anyway. If 
you're looking for some oldie, you'd search by track name or artist.
>>
>> I thought Viacom were a TV company, not a record company, though?
>
>They are indeed, but they own MTV and VH1 (and the various spin-off
>channels) from where a lot of old videos on YouTube have been taped.

Then perhaps they should get off their arses & fix the now/next banner, 
which has been fucked for a week...
>
>> What a sad organisation though, if they employ someone solely to scour the
>> WWW for copyright breaches. It's not like anyone even makes money at their
>> expense via Youtube postings!
>
>Their argument would be that they do lose money, because if people watch
>Viacom's content on their TV channels (or, I suppose, on their websites)
>that contributes to their advertising revenue.

Except that anyone with more than half a brain cell channel hops during 
the adverts. :)

>If they watch it on YouTube,
>it adds to Google's ad revenue.

Why is it that all advertisers seem to have the same blind spot - namely 
that *people do not like their programs being interrupted by fucking 
adverts*!
>
>> Not to mention it's like swimming against a flood - for every site you
>> close down, another springs up in its place, and if people feel bullied by
>> big corporations, then it's more likely to be *ten* new sites... :)
>
>Well, I don't think Viacom could shut YouTube down (other than by leaving it
>with such a massive legal bill that it went bust, which would be difficult)
>as it's a fundamentally legal site. What they want YouTube to do is stop
>people from posting stuff that they [ie the posters] don't own, although I
>think you're right in saying that that's effectively impossible.

IMO they should just grin and bear it - after all, Youtube *increases* 
the number of people who can see music videos, and that must surely have 
a beneficial knock-on effect on sales.

Also, since old tracks can be purchased as easily as new ones nowadays, 
having old videos easily visible can't be harmful - not to mention it 
saves Viacom the cost of putting them on-line themselves...

I wonder if the above would convince a jury in a copyright lawsuit? :)
>
>>>>>>>> T  Rex #71,
>>>
>>>There are no CDs - these are 7" singles, remember.
>>
>> OK, but exactly the same applies.
>
>Sort of, except that they wouldn't have done that expecting them to go Top
>10 or whatever - unlike, say, those Bob Marley ones a couple of years ago.

Except that the ability to download tracks at any time is likely to 
undermine any attempt at formal re-releasing - in general, not just for 
T.Rex.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Paul Hyett wrote:
> In uk.music.charts on Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Why are they counted as if they were new singles though?
>>
>> The rule the books use is that a new catalogue number = a new release 
>> even
>> if the contents are the same. Of course they haven't yet had to deal with
>> records that chart with no physical single at all.
> 
> Maybe that's why Guinness chickened out of a new edition this year? :)

that, and the fact that I think that sales were too low to warrant a new 
edition so soon.

> 
>> But the precedent in the books is to treat even musically
>> identical releases with different numbers (which of course happens more
>> often with albums) as seperate entities and equally to count different 
>> ones
>> with the same number as re-entries. Confused? You will be.
> 
> I don't get why they are so hung up over catalogue numbers anyway. If 
> you're looking for some oldie, you'd search by track name or artist.

Back in 1977, when Hit Singles first appeared, the inclusion of the 
catalogue number was one of the selling points of the book. In 1977 it 
was still the norm to be able to buy old singles, even from as far back 
as the 50s, from record shops since records weren't normally deleted and 
the inclusion of the catalogue number was intended to assist the record 
buyer, if they wished to then go and buy a song.

Of course, records are now routinely deleted within a month or two of 
release, so catalogue numbers are not so important. It would be easier 
for Hit Singles to list songs by chart run, although even that is a bit 
complicated in the download era when old songs make random one week 
entries into the top 75. Plus some songs have had significant amounts of 
separate chart runs that space may not allow to be displayed.

-- 
Robbie

In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Robbie  
wrote :

>>  I don't get why they are so hung up over catalogue numbers anyway. 
>>If  you're looking for some oldie, you'd search by track name or artist.
>
>Back in 1977, when Hit Singles first appeared, the inclusion of the 
>catalogue number was one of the selling points of the book.

I think I bought the first ed. of GBHS.

>In 1977 it was still the norm to be able to buy old singles, even from 
>as far back as the 50s, from record shops since records weren't 
>normally deleted and the inclusion of the catalogue number was intended 
>to assist the record buyer, if they wished to then go and buy a song.

Good point.

Personally, I didn't buy my first record until around 1982, though.
>
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

Paul Hyett wrote:
> In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Robbie  
> wrote :
> 
>>>  I don't get why they are so hung up over catalogue numbers anyway. 
>>> If  you're looking for some oldie, you'd search by track name or artist.
>>
>> Back in 1977, when Hit Singles first appeared, the inclusion of the 
>> catalogue number was one of the selling points of the book.
> 
> I think I bought the first ed. of GBHS.

I got it as a Christmas present that particular year. I think it had the 
union jack on the cover, perhaps set inside a record. I can't remember 100%

> 
>> In 1977 it was still the norm to be able to buy old singles, even from 
>> as far back as the 50s, from record shops since records weren't 
>> normally deleted and the inclusion of the catalogue number was 
>> intended to assist the record buyer, if they wished to then go and buy 
>> a song.
> 
> Good point.
> 
> Personally, I didn't buy my first record until around 1982, though.
>>

and the record was...?

-- 
Robbie

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message 
news:MIo$5xFDWh8GFwSx@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Why are they counted as if they were new singles though?
>>
>>The rule the books use is that a new catalogue number = a new release even
>>if the contents are the same. Of course they haven't yet had to deal with
>>records that chart with no physical single at all.
>
> Maybe that's why Guinness chickened out of a new edition this year? :)

I know they had all those problems with the licence and stuff - but I 
suppose if sales were higher it'd be easier to deal with those.

>>But the precedent in the books is to treat even musically
>>identical releases with different numbers (which of course happens more
>>often with albums) as seperate entities and equally to count different 
>>ones
>>with the same number as re-entries. Confused? You will be.
>
> I don't get why they are so hung up over catalogue numbers anyway. If 
> you're looking for some oldie, you'd search by track name or artist.

Well, yes you would but that's not incompatible with printing the cat no.
If you were studying the chart career of, say, Elvis, it's worth knowing 
that 'Jailhouse Rock' was a hit in 2005 as well as 1957.

>>> I thought Viacom were a TV company, not a record company, though?
>>
>>They are indeed, but they own MTV and VH1 (and the various spin-off
>>channels) from where a lot of old videos on YouTube have been taped.
>
> Then perhaps they should get off their arses & fix the now/next banner, 
> which has been fucked for a week...

Perhaps, although I think they have different employees.

>>> What a sad organisation though, if they employ someone solely to scour 
>>> the
>>> WWW for copyright breaches. It's not like anyone even makes money at 
>>> their
>>> expense via Youtube postings!
>>
>>Their argument would be that they do lose money, because if people watch
>>Viacom's content on their TV channels (or, I suppose, on their websites)
>>that contributes to their advertising revenue.
>
> Except that anyone with more than half a brain cell channel hops during 
> the adverts. :)

If the sort of ads that were on last time I watched MTV are anything to go 
by, they've already accounted for that. ;)

>>If they watch it on YouTube,
>>it adds to Google's ad revenue.
>
> Why is it that all advertisers seem to have the same blind spot - namely 
> that *people do not like their programs being interrupted by fucking 
> adverts*!

Because they don't have any choice - if you put the adverts on a separate 
channel nobody would watch them would they?

>>> Not to mention it's like swimming against a flood - for every site you
>>> close down, another springs up in its place, and if people feel bullied 
>>> by
>>> big corporations, then it's more likely to be *ten* new sites... :)
>>
>>Well, I don't think Viacom could shut YouTube down (other than by leaving 
>>it
>>with such a massive legal bill that it went bust, which would be 
>>difficult)
>>as it's a fundamentally legal site. What they want YouTube to do is stop
>>people from posting stuff that they [ie the posters] don't own, although I
>>think you're right in saying that that's effectively impossible.
>
> IMO they should just grin and bear it - after all, Youtube *increases* the 
> number of people who can see music videos, and that must surely have a 
> beneficial knock-on effect on sales.

Yes - but increased music sales don't do Viacom any good do they?
It is an advantage to record companies though, which is why many of them are 
uploading their  videos officially - Universal have put thousands up there 
(including at least some that aren't even available) and most of the 
independents are doing it too.

> Also, since old tracks can be purchased as easily as new ones nowadays, 
> having old videos easily visible can't be harmful - not to mention it 
> saves Viacom the cost of putting them on-line themselves...

But, as I said above, people watching videos on YouTube doesn't benefit 
Viacom at all - in fact it's bad news for them, because it gives people less 
incentive to watch their TV channels, but they can't legally object to that 
element of it.

> I wonder if the above would convince a jury in a copyright lawsuit? :)

Do they even have juries?

>>>>>>>>> T  Rex #71,
>>>>
>>>>There are no CDs - these are 7" singles, remember.
>>>
>>> OK, but exactly the same applies.
>>
>>Sort of, except that they wouldn't have done that expecting them to go Top
>>10 or whatever - unlike, say, those Bob Marley ones a couple of years ago.
>
> Except that the ability to download tracks at any time is likely to 
> undermine any attempt at formal re-releasing - in general, not just for 
> T.Rex.

It could certainly undermine attempts to have hits by re-releasing singles - 
because, as you're implying, people who just want the tracks don't have to 
wait until it's out again - but I don't think they were trying for that in 
this case anyway.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:Iot+hgEVGh8GFwQZ@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Wed, 19 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>
>>>> and 'You're Beautiful' was weeks after that.
>>>
>>> I remember he took 7 weeks to reach #1, which hadn't happened for quite
>>> a
>>> while before that.
>>
>>Indeed so, and I think we all attributed that to the downloads at the
>>time.
>>Whether it was true or not I can't really recall.
>
> Checking back...
>
> It was out to download two weeks before it was out on CD, and was #34 &
> #21 on those non-counting weeks.

Presumably you could download it even before then, as the album had been 
around since 2004 - but that might be when they released the clean version.

> From 11/6, its positions on both charts

Thanks for those.

> Of course, downloads were a much smaller proportion of overall sales back
> then, so a high position in that chart wasn't necessarily reflected in the
> combined one.

No, but he obviously sold more than he would have had there not been 
downloads.

>>>>I'd guess from the
>>>>extent to which downloads kept the track in the charts after the CD was
>>>>deleted that they were selling in appreciable numbers.
>>>
>>> Just 2 weeks after surely, because of the deletion/exclusion rules?
>>
>>No, because we didn't have those rules yet - indeed I suspect this track
>>inspired them. IIRC it was in the Top 75 right up until those came into
>>force though.
>
> Correct - it was still #50 the week before its exclusion. It pops in & out
> of the top 200 even now (#156 this week).

I was half-expecting him to make a higher re-appearance at the start of 
2007, but I suppose too many people already have it.

>>> On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban
>>> influenced as her last?
>>
>>I'm sure her strategy department are working on that even now.
>
> I'd hope they'd have that finalised by now, since the album is due out in
> just over 8 weeks!

Really? I'd have expected the publicity machine to swing into action by now.

>Curiously though, I don't see a single listed yet on
> the NR schedule.

I suppose it might be a download-only thing. Or she might be soft-launching 
over here. Or the record company might be really indecisive.

>>> Also, will she be wearing as skimpy and/or
>>> figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...
>>
>>Of course. What else is she going to do?
>
> Well, unlike most of the other physically attractive female pop stars, she
> has a great voice too.

She had one anyway.

>Don't forget she had a number of big hits even
> before she started to exploit her physical attributes.

That's not really how I remember it, TBH.

    Chris

In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>>
>> Correct - it was still #50 the week before its exclusion. It pops in & out
>> of the top 200 even now (#156 this week).
>
>I was half-expecting him to make a higher re-appearance at the start of
>2007, but I suppose too many people already have it.

They may have bought it in the week after Xmas, but don't forget it 
didn't become eligible again until the 13/1/07 chart.
>
>>>> On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban
>>>> influenced as her last?
>>>
>>>I'm sure her strategy department are working on that even now.
>>
>> I'd hope they'd have that finalised by now, since the album is due out in
>> just over 8 weeks!
>
>Really? I'd have expected the publicity machine to swing into action by now.

8 weeks pre-album seems a little too soon.
>
>>Curiously though, I don't see a single listed yet on
>> the NR schedule.
>
>I suppose it might be a download-only thing.

Extremely unlikely for a first single, especially given the success of 
her previous album.

>Or she might be soft-launching
>over here.

Again unlikely, with the Xmas market looming.

>Or the record company might be really indecisive.

Maybe they'll release different tracks as first single here & in 
America, as Nelly Furtado did from 'Loose'.
>
>>>> Also, will she be wearing as skimpy and/or
>>>> figure-hugging outfits in the videos for it...
>>>
>>>Of course. What else is she going to do?
>>
>> Well, unlike most of the other physically attractive female pop stars, she
>> has a great voice too.
>
>She had one anyway.

But she had an unexploited great figure...
>
>>Don't forget she had a number of big hits even
>> before she started to exploit her physical attributes.
>
>That's not really how I remember it, TBH.

 From what I've seen of her early videos, she didn't show much flesh...

Check Youtube for 'Without You' or 'All I Want For Christmas' compared 
to 'It's Like That' or especially 'Get Your Number'!

That skimpy yellow PVC dress - WOW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sfs3r4AsOw
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Robbie  
wrote :
>Paul Hyett wrote:
>> In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Robbie 
>>  wrote :
>>
>>>>  I don't get why they are so hung up over catalogue numbers anyway. 
>>>>If  you're looking for some oldie, you'd search by track name or 
>>>>artist.
>>>
>>> Back in 1977, when Hit Singles first appeared, the inclusion of the 
>>>catalogue number was one of the selling points of the book.
>>  I think I bought the first ed. of GBHS.
>
>I got it as a Christmas present that particular year. I think it had 
>the union jack on the cover, perhaps set inside a record. I can't 
>remember 100%
>
>>
>>> In 1977 it was still the norm to be able to buy old singles, even 
>>>from  as far back as the 50s, from record shops since records weren't 
>>>normally deleted and the inclusion of the catalogue number was 
>>>intended to assist the record buyer, if they wished to then go and 
>>>buy  a song.
>>  Good point.
>>  Personally, I didn't buy my first record until around 1982, though.
>>>
>
>and the record was...?

It was the Boomtown Rats - can't remember which song though.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Brown 
 wrote :
>
>>>> I thought Viacom were a TV company, not a record company, though?
>>>
>>>They are indeed, but they own MTV and VH1 (and the various spin-off
>>>channels) from where a lot of old videos on YouTube have been taped.
>>
>> Then perhaps they should get off their arses & fix the now/next banner,
>> which has been fucked for a week...
>
>Perhaps, although I think they have different employees.

They've finally started to fix it, but it tends to crash every day that 
ends in a 'y'... :)
>>
>> Why is it that all advertisers seem to have the same blind spot - namely
>> that *people do not like their programs being interrupted by fucking
>> adverts*!
>
>Because they don't have any choice - if you put the adverts on a separate
>channel nobody would watch them would they?

Hey, it seems to work for the shopping channels...
>>
>> IMO they should just grin and bear it - after all, Youtube *increases* the
>> number of people who can see music videos, and that must surely have a
>> beneficial knock-on effect on sales.
>
>Yes - but increased music sales don't do Viacom any good do they?

Not *directly*, but quite possibly indirectly - but acting like 
censorious assholes *will* damage their reputation...

>It is an advantage to record companies though, which is why many of them are
>uploading their  videos officially - Universal have put thousands up there
>(including at least some that aren't even available) and most of the
>independents are doing it too.

Dramatico certainly put Katie Melua's new video there first.
>
>> I wonder if the above would convince a jury in a copyright lawsuit? :)
>
>Do they even have juries?

I think they might in America.
-- 
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham (change 'invalid83261' to 'blueyonder' to email me)

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:RP9IooEWd28GFwBa@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>
>>>>> I thought Viacom were a TV company, not a record company, though?
>>>>
>>>>They are indeed, but they own MTV and VH1 (and the various spin-off
>>>>channels) from where a lot of old videos on YouTube have been taped.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is it that all advertisers seem to have the same blind spot - namely
>>> that *people do not like their programs being interrupted by fucking
>>> adverts*!
>>
>>Because they don't have any choice - if you put the adverts on a separate
>>channel nobody would watch them would they?
>
> Hey, it seems to work for the shopping channels...

It does (presumably) but that's a very specific business model that's hardly 
suited to other forms of programming.

>>> IMO they should just grin and bear it - after all, Youtube *increases*
>>> the
>>> number of people who can see music videos, and that must surely have a
>>> beneficial knock-on effect on sales.
>>
>>Yes - but increased music sales don't do Viacom any good do they?
>
> Not *directly*, but quite possibly indirectly -

Only very very indirectly, if it makes record companies wealthier. And even 
then there's no guarantee they'd give any of their wealth to Viacom.

>but acting like censorious
> assholes *will* damage their reputation...

It already has, although I'm not sure "censorious" is exactly the word here.
The nightmare scenario for them (as regards music programming) is that if 
people turn to YouTube to watch videos, MTV's audience disappears and the 
record companies lose interest.
Personally, I think they are being unhelpful by trying to pull down stuff 
like promo videos, which they obviously didn't create - but of course this 
is part of a much bigger phenomenon involving their other channels.

    Chris

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:oOnWIuD+V28GFwGA@blueyonder.co.uk...
> In uk.music.charts on Thu, 20 Sep 2007, Chris Brown
>  wrote :
>>>
>>> Correct - it was still #50 the week before its exclusion. It pops in &
>>> out
>>> of the top 200 even now (#156 this week).
>>
>>I was half-expecting him to make a higher re-appearance at the start of
>>2007, but I suppose too many people already have it.
>
> They may have bought it in the week after Xmas, but don't forget it didn't
> become eligible again until the 13/1/07 chart.

Yeah, I meant that he might be popping back when he became eligible again. 
Obviously, I hadn't been following the download charts very carefully.

>>>>> On the subject of Mariah - I wonder if her new album will be as urban
>>>>> influenced as her last?
>>>>
>>>>I'm sure her strategy department are working on that even now.
>>>
>>> I'd hope they'd have that finalised by now, since the album is due out
>>> in
>>> just over 8 weeks!
>>
>>Really? I'd have expected the publicity machine to swing into action by
>>now.
>
> 8 weeks pre-album seems a little too soon.

For the real hardcore promo, yeah - but I'm surprised I didn't even know.

>>>Curiously though, I don't see a single listed yet on
>>> the NR schedule.
>>
>>I suppose it might be a download-only thing.
>
> Extremely unlikely for a first single, especially given the success of her
> previous album.

Unless it was a deliberate test-case on the record company's part.

>>Or she